• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

does god exist?

Ronald

Well-Known Member
Pah,
The non-exisistant one said in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, in the doubtful book of Luke.
"If they do not hear Moses and the prophets, neither will be convinced if someone should rise from the dead."
Yes, Luke had 20/20 hindsight when he wrote or did not write his book. But, Paul believed someone who did rise from the dead.
I have no way to convince you even of the exisistance of the Creator, but the words of Paul in Ro. 1:18-23.
I have to give you credit, you're not into idolatry. That's a good thing.
 

true blood

Active Member
I kinda understand ya Pah. My point I was trying to make is this: Let's say all of us here were together IRL and we all witnessed a miracle or an act of God or perhaps an angel came before us and performed some great act. We would likely believe the things we had seen. Maybe we'd write down the accounts of what we witnessed and experienced. Well, 100 years later, people who would read our testimony would say it isn't true. However, their testimony is secondary to ours, right?
 

Pah

Uber all member
true blood said:
I kinda understand ya Pah. My point I was trying to make is this: Let's say all of us here were together IRL and we all witnessed a miracle or an act of God or perhaps an angel came before us and performed some great act. We would likely believe the things we had seen. Maybe we'd write down the accounts of what we witnessed and experienced. Well, 100 years later, people who would read our testimony would say it isn't true. However, their testimony is secondary to ours, right?

I'm sorry, true blood, wih all this talk of witnesses that you've made with errors throughout the talk, the fact remains that there are no eyewitness accounts of the risen Lord. The is no proof from testimony in the bible. I truthfully would respect you more if you gave up the search for proof and just felt more comfortable in your faith instead of trying to prove it. Faith allows you to accept what is important to you regardless of any arguements to the contrary.

We can always talk about interpretations of what is in the bible - I as an element of the defense of secular society, you as a cornerstone of your faith.

-pah-
 

true blood

Active Member
First of all, I don't want nor do I need anyones respect here. You've already said, let me quote, "The fact is there is only one indication of any of the New Testament writers being an eye witness". My point is that any other testimony is secondary, in a court of law, in comparison to an eye witnesses testimony. If you don't want to answer my question that's fine. The writer of Magdalene MS was an eye witness of the risen Christ.
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
(Q) said:
Science has simply shown that the universe and everything in it can exist without the need for gods.

ask science how to cure a virus, or how a bumble bee flies.then we can talk about their inablitity to explain why things die.if science had proven as you say "we can exist without a surpeme being", then i ask how?since they haven't figured many trivial things out besides the more pressing "how have we come to exist?".

--$
 

Pah

Uber all member
true blood said:
First of all, I don't want nor do I need anyones respect here. You've already said, let me quote, "The fact is there is only one indication of any of the New Testament writers being an eye witness". My point is that any other testimony is secondary, in a court of law, in comparison to an eye witnesses testimony. If you don't want to answer my question that's fine. The writer of Magdalene MS was an eye witness of the risen Christ.

First of all, there is growing recognition in court procedings that eye witness evidence is weak and grows weaker as time passes. That it is susceptible to induced error. Evidence based on science, in fact, has grown to the point where it is much more highly effective in providing a jury decision made without doubt. Eye witness testimony is not the pinnacle of evidence and is easliy discredited.

We know that ten's of years passed before any account was written. We know that many scholars will not attribute the gospels authorship to the name on it. We can read that that the New Testament gospels are not written in the first person ( but I beleive one was - at least in part). So what you have in Christian canon is the poorest of narrative accounts probably taken from an oral tradition that suffers its own weaknesses.

Now you mention a "Magdalene MS". I'm not sure of what you mean by "MS", but the Magdalene Gospel is also known as Pepys Gospel or the Pepysian Gospel Harmony. It is also closely associated with the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. I understand that a modern English translation and research are from a document written in Middle English (a formal transitional English between Old English and New English derived from the Germanic language family) Available here

The text itself is a harmonization of the New Testamant gospels for it contains, as example, snippets of text from the nativity accounts of Luke and Matthew and the baptism of Jesus by John from all four gospels. Between these segments of canonized text are additions or rewording.

In telling the episode of baptism, it refers to John the Baptist as Saint John. John is not deemed a saint in the New Testament and was not cannonized until well after the RCC was established and the title was formalized. Suffice it to say, there are serious scholastic problems with this writing been an "inspired word of God".

-pah-
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
pah said:
First of all, there is growing recognition in court procedings that eye witness evidence is weak and grows weaker as time passes. That it is susceptible to induced error. Evidence based on science, in fact, has grown to the point where it is much more highly effective in providing a jury decision made without doubt. Eye witness testimony is not the pinnacle of evidence and is easliy discredited.

Well...if you saw something, and science said it wasn't possible.would you believe them?Science in time proves itself wrong more than eye witness evidence, that is it's purpose.to prove itself wrong.to explain the unexplainable, to correct misconceptions or erronous experiments/theories.as far as i've ever seen, people believe what they've seen over what science tells them making it the pinnacle.this isn't a court proceding.


--$
 

Pah

Uber all member
HelpMe said:
ask science how to cure a virus, or how a bumble bee flies.then we can talk about their inablitity to explain why things die.if science had proven as you say "we can exist without a surpeme being", then i ask how?since they haven't figured many trivial things out besides the more pressing "how have we come to exist?".

--$

Regarding the bee - from Science Proves Bees Can't Fly

The "science has proved that bees can't fly" urban myth originated in a 1934 book by entomologist Antoine Magnan, who discussed a mathematical equation by Andre Sainte-Lague, an engineer. The equation proved that the maximum lift for an aircraft's wings could not be achieved at equivalent speeds of a bee. I.e., an airplane the size of a bee, moving as slowly as a bee, could not fly. Although this did not mean a bee can't fly (which after all does not have stationary wings like the posited teency aircraft), nevertheless the idea that Magnan's book said bees oughtn't be able to fly began to spread.

It spread at first as a joke in European universities, at Sainte-Lague's & Magnan's expense. But later it became a "fact" among the gullible or the uneducated not smart enough to get the joke. Later still it became a "fun" experiment to develop complex mathematical theories both to explain how insects fly, or why they can't -- scientific intellectual sophism.

It has remained popular to this day, among the kinds of people who believe there were never dinosaurs because the devil made fossils to fool us, because the fact is that the world is only 6,000 years old & God made it in seven days. Alleged "loopholes" in physics are lit upon as evidence that the supernatural, & not physics, informs the nature of the universe. Whether that supernatural agent is God, astrology, the Good Fairies, or homeopathy, physics must first be shown to be the primary delusion so that wild impossibilities can be embraced as greater truth.

The simple way to debunk the moronic assertion is this: The aerodynamic equations that explain airplane flight are based on steady-wing & not moble-wing function. That a steady-wing airplane the size & shape of a bee will not fly has no baring whatsoever or the vastly more complicated moble-wing functions of insects.

And wow, doesn't it seem like even someone of highly limited intellectual capacity might've lit on that with even a third-grader's science education?? Never underestimate human capacity for ignorance.

Though the folklore began as a joke about a steady-wing flight equation foolishly applied to moble-wing, as often seems inevitable of folklore, the joke took on its own separate life. Silly reasoning evolved, building falacy upon falacy: Bees can't fly because it takes rear-wings to steady the flight, & they have no rear wings so they should tumble through the air ***-over-teakettle. No, that's not it, bee's can't possibly fly because it is physically impossible for wings to beat as fast as bee's wings beat. No wait, bees can't fly because the texture of their wings is too flat, unlike a bird or an airplane designed like airfoil. Oh! No! Wait! Though bees can fly (because we've seen 'em do it) & it does follow physics, nevertheless science can't explain it, so there!

Well, actually, Navier-Stokes flight equations are applicable to bees, & were developed in the early 1800s. So all that is really true is this: most of us couldn't follow Navier-Stokes theories of motion even if a professor tried to make it simple for us, so we still have to make an emotional decision to embrace the strong probability that physics do govern the universe, or that physics have no applicability because God & magic rules the universe.

Virus are cured or better yet, destroyed by the bodies own defense system. Science plays it's part by amplifying the antibodies effectiveness or quantity in the body. This is a case of science assisting the evolutionary human defense against preditors

We exist without the need of a supernatural explanation. Your "supreme being" has never been proven to exist or that he is the only one that exists.

-pah-
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
there's much more than just bumble bees, i just found that the most ammusing, and that it was as you pointed out a myth sorta less than an hour ago.so excuse me.why isn't the weather perfectly predictable by any stretch of even the most concieted athiests imagination?

pah said:
Virus are cured or better yet, destroyed by the bodies own defense system. Science plays it's part by amplifying the antibodies effectiveness or quantity in the body. This is a case of science assisting the evolutionary human defense against preditors

aids/hiv?cancer?the common cold?ect?ect?ect?

evolution?would you be the holder of your so dear 'missing link'?i really don't think you'll make any more progress in this field particularly than a friend of mine whom is becoming a rocket scientist, after much debate, he agreed that 'it is a matter of faith'.but if you know something the rest of the world doesn't, then feel free to present all those missing links.have you read extensively your main man's works and biographical accounts?(darwin)

see this


--$
 

Pah

Uber all member
HelpMe said:
there's much more than just bumble bees, i just found that the most ammusing, and that it was as you pointed out a myth sorta less than an hour ago.so excuse me

You're excused. But I don't find it amusing that some Christians will persistantly perpetuate myth and urban legend as truth and arguement. It really diminishes the attempt to make a case for God whenever it is exposed.

why isn't the weather perfectly predictable by any stretch of even the most concieted athiests imagination?

Why can't God produce a square circle? Because the question is illogical. Your question is also illogical in the requirement to to be perfect. Chaos theory shows that even a butterfly moving its wings in Brazil, or any other locality, affects the global weather pattern. Local weather is impossible to predict perfectly because all of the factors known to influence weather are not accumulated as data for input to a prediction. Only broad patterns are avaiable.

Atheists have a better chance of understanding science just because they generally posses a strong, free thinking mind not hampered by faith in the supernatural.


aids/hiv?cancer?the common cold?ect?ect?ect?

I described the process which you requested ("how to cure a virus"). Now you want specifics? Before I invest time and energy in answering your further skepticism, you must agree or refute the process.

evolution?would you be the holder of your so dear 'missing link'?i really don't think you'll make any more progress in this field particularly than a friend of mine whom is becoming a rocket scientist, after much debate, he agreed that 'it is a matter of faith'.but if you know something the rest of the world doesn't, then feel free to present all those missing links.have you read extensively your main man's works and biographical accounts?(darwin)

see this

--$

Off topic! If you want to discuss evolution, start another thread or join one in progress

-pah-
 

Pah

Uber all member
HelpMe said:
Well...if you saw something, and science said it wasn't possible.would you believe them?Science in time proves itself wrong more than eye witness evidence, that is it's purpose.to prove itself wrong.to explain the unexplainable, to correct misconceptions or erronous experiments/theories.as far as i've ever seen, people believe what they've seen over what science tells them making it the pinnacle.this isn't a court proceding.


--$

Yep!!!! I believe science over eye witness testimony. Rape victims have identified a person that can not possibly leave the DNA evidence of rape or even consensual sex. DNA evidence have freed hundreds (maybe only tens) of innocent prisoners positively identified by the rape victim. You think that someone as intimetly close to a rapist would recognize them again - wouldn't you. This is where your common sense fails you.

-pah-
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
excuse me, i was not referring to 3rd person eye witness.i did say 'you saw' didn't i?not 'if someone told you they saw'.

how long have you loved stick men


--$
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
how many times has aids been cured?shux and all this time i thought it to be terminal.

a square circle?are you kidding?are you really comparing a (by definition) impossible combination to predicting the weather?

the chaos theory shows?...you mentioned evolution first not me

"...science assisting the evolutionary..."

so who's off topic?get over yourself.


--$
 

Pah

Uber all member
HelpMe said:
how many times has aids been cured?shux and all this time i thought it to be terminal

I asked you to confirm or deny that process first. Please do so.

a square circle?are you kidding?are you really comparing a (by definition) impossible combination to predicting the weather?

Ah, Helpme, Some say that God's miracles are impossible but supposedly he does them often. But I gave you an out.

I an comparing the two illogical questions.


the chaos theory shows?...you mentioned evolution first not me ...[cut]...

What does Chaos theory have to do with evolution?

You have yet to coherently refute any of the comments I made.

Please refute or confirm
  • The expalnation of the bumble bee flight
  • Science assisting the auto-immune system
  • The current impossibly of perfectly peredicting weather

-pah-
 

HelpMe

·´sociopathic meanderer`·
1.i already did this didn't i?

2.certain chemicals, can at times, in some cases help our immune system.i'd like to ask your all-knowing science why it can't do such all of the time, and why it can't do such vs terminal illnesses such as some viruses.

3.it is possible to predict the weather, science hasn't gone to the lengths yet, and i doubt they will, but it can be done.you do believe in the chaos theory right?i liked the butterfly effect too.


--$
 

Pah

Uber all member
HelpMe said:
1.i already did this didn't i?

2.certain chemicals, can at times, in some cases help our immune system.i'd like to ask your all-knowing science why it can't do such all of the time, and why it can't do such vs terminal illnesses such as some viruses.

3.it is possible to predict the weather, science hasn't gone to the lengths yet, and i doubt they will, but it can be done.you do believe in the chaos theory right?i liked the butterfly effect too.
--$

So far you have advanced three reasons why science should be disparaged in the question of "does God exist". You have conceded that my comments are correct.

As for your remaining attack on science - it does not pretend to be all-knowing or perfect and is a process of learning. Much is unknown and much of that will be known. But it's done a wonderful job in medicine. Much of it's progress, in almost every field connected to life, has been in spite of religious opposition and the men who speak in God's name.

But I'd like to ask you a question - If God exists as it is said he does, why has he not cured the disease his creation faces. Why is it left up to science to do this? God certainly doesn'rt seem to provide for us.

-pah-
 

scratch

Member
I think pah's points are the most valid i've seen on my topic.

The point is the bible, Religion all of those santa claus stories haven't proven anything. There just that stories. So what if people have seen it i their visions and written it all down. They could have easily been crazy, trying to control people through manipulation of their faith.

Science has it's flaws but science has also brought me back from near death with anti-biotics and such. So forgive me if I put a whole lot of trust into science.
Sure science has made mistakes, (recently with the blackholes and stephen hawkings) But I find religion can do sometimes more harm than good.

Think about how many wars have been fought over religion. Think about how many deaths there have been because of religion. I Think it's weird also how some christian people feel they have to try and force there beliefs on people with pamphelts and threats.
 

true blood

Active Member
Look, if you can give me proof that God doesn't exist...I will rest my case. Until you do that, the only thing available is other people''s testimony.
 

Ceridwen018

Well-Known Member
Look, if you can give me proof that God doesn't exist...I will rest my case. Until you do that, the only thing available is other people''s testimony.
Well, let's think about this for a minute, true blood. It is impossible to 'disprove' the existence of a negative, ie, something that doesn't exist, using tangible evidence. As I'm sure you understand, if something is capable of creating evidence, it obviously exists, and there is no such thing as 'anti-evidence'. When proving that something does exist, scientists look for residual clues, such as fossils supporting the existence of dinosaurs, and soundwaves proving a whale's method of communication. If something doesn't exist, it obviously cannot leave behind any evidence. Therefore, to determine whether or not something doesn't exist, scientists look for the lack of residual evidence. Obviously, if there were no fossils, we would be in a tough spot trying to prove that dinosaurs ever existed, does that make sense?

To wrap this thought up, I'll conclude by pointing out that there is no evidence for god, just as there is no evidence for leprechauns, and so science must consider god (and leprechauns) to be non-existent.
 
Top